DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70898--------------------------------------------------
Newham - 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain
types of Vehicle (Motor Vehicles)
DIR By: Kash
Date: May 11, 2025, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Deal All,
I’ve just received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for allegedly
failing to comply with a "prohibition on motor vehicles"
(contravention code 52m) on Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions
Roundabout E16. The incident is recorded as happening on
25/04/2025 at 23:19.
I was genuinely unaware of any restriction at the time. After
receiving the notice, I went back to the location to check for
signage—but couldn’t find any clear or visible signs indicating
a restriction for motor vehicles. To be thorough, I even
recorded a video of my approach and entry onto Royal Albert Way
to document what I saw (or didn’t see).
This seems really unfair if the signage isn’t clearly marked,
especially for drivers unfamiliar with the area or driving at
night. Has anyone else experienced something similar at this
location?
Any advice on appealing this would be appreciated.
I have attached PCN and all the council's pictures, videos and
the video that I made.
[attach=1][attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 70905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of Vehicle (Motor Vehicles)
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: May 11, 2025, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The prohibition is part-time. The sign you passed is a
multi-function display that shows the speed limit except when
the prohibition applies, 23:00 to 03:00 Mon-Sun maybe? I'm not
certain on the times?
Are you able to return to the site and get some photos of the
warning signs on the approaches to the roundabout? Last I
checked they were CCTV warning signs but they didn't say for
what exactly? There are suggestions that the Council has updated
these advanced warning signs in response to lost cases at
Adjudication.
And you will have to appeal to the Adjudicator.
#Post#: 70909--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of Vehicle (Motor Vehicles)
DIR By: Kash
Date: May 11, 2025, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=38]Enceladus[/member] Thanks, yes I've these Video and
Image
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 70985--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of Vehicle (Motor Vehicles)
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: May 12, 2025, 3:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your attached file 'Video No Sign C.mpg' doesn't seem to work.
Your photo shows the displays showing the 40mph speed limit as
you enter Royal Albert Way. This sign changes to the 'flying
motorcycle' sign when the 'No Motor Vehicles' prohibition is
active. As I recall this is between 11pm - and 03am.
Looks like there is no time-plate.
However your photo does show they've fixed one issue, there is
now a sign on the right side of the carriageway. Previously only
the one on the left was present.
On the roads approaching the roundabout there are/were CCTV
enforcement warning signs. But the signs did not indicate what
was being enforced. There were no warning signs that the Royal
Albert Way exit might be closed to traffic. It's these signs
that need to be checked. Or at least the ones, if any, on the
road you joined the roundabout from. Is that the video that
doesn't work?
Here is GSV for Atlantis Ave
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/WxmNpxoGB5oj6V657
just before the
roundabout. Now it tells you that there is CCTV enforcement on
Royal Albert Way but not when or why. And is GSV up to date? Has
the sign changed?
The advance warning signs are important because there is an
argument that you are committed to exiting the roundabout at
Royal Albert before you can see the flying motorcycle sign. What
are you supposed to do? Stop and reverse back onto the
roundabout? This has won at Adjudication.
#Post#: 70987--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of Vehicle (Motor Vehicles)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 12, 2025, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The basic problem that was, I think, identified by Carl Teper at
London Tribunals, was that the signage was inadequate because it
didnt reflect the TRO. There is nowhere that tells you the
restricted times on approach, but this is in the TRO.
#Post#: 71061--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of Vehicle (Motor Vehicles)
DIR By: Kash
Date: May 12, 2025, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for your valuable input on this PCN.
Since 1st January 2023, there have been 168 PCNs issued for the
same location—Royal Albert Way. Of these, 128 appeals were
allowed and 40 were refused, resulting in an appeal success rate
of 76.19%.
What I find difficult to understand is why some adjudicators
continue to refuse appeals, despite the consistent lack of
advance warning signs from any approach to Royal Albert Way. The
only signage present appears to be the camera enforcement and
prohibition signs. As @Incadecent rightly pointed out, by the
time drivers see the diagram 619 sign (as shown in the TSRGD),
it’s too late to stop safely, and reversing would pose a serious
hazard.
I intend to draw on arguments from the successful
appeals—especially those that emphasize the absence of advance
warning signs indicating that motor vehicles are prohibited on
Royal Albert Way from 11 PM onwards
#Post#: 71146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of Vehicle (Motor Vehicles)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 12, 2025, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kash link ---
>
>
> Thank you all for your valuable input on this PCN.
>
> Since 1st January 2023, there have been 168 PCNs issued for
the same location—Royal Albert Way. Of these, 128 appeals were
allowed and 40 were refused, resulting in an appeal success rate
of 76.19%.
>
> What I find difficult to understand is why some adjudicators
continue to refuse appeals, despite the consistent lack of
advance warning signs from any approach to Royal Albert Way. The
only signage present appears to be the camera enforcement and
prohibition signs. As @Incadecent rightly pointed out, by the
time drivers see the diagram 619 sign (as shown in the TSRGD),
it’s too late to stop safely, and reversing would pose a serious
hazard.
>
> I intend to draw on arguments from the successful
appeals—especially those that emphasize the absence of advance
warning signs indicating that motor vehicles are prohibited on
Royal Albert Way from 11 PM onwards
>
--- End Quote ---
Indeed. Signs must reflect the TRO. It is in Regulation 18 of
Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/part/III
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1